It has become fairly obvious over the past year or two that major tech companies and social media platforms hold a bias toward the left that has increasingly resulted in what many view as blatant censorship and smears of conservative ideals and voices. But now a powerful Republican in Congress has issued something of a…
Last week, Virginia’s general assembly voted to expand Medicaid under the auspices of Obamacare. The commonwealth’s legislators had wisely resisted doing so for years, but four GOP state senators broke ranks to vote for this bill in exchange for a provision stipulating an anemic work requirement. The “news” media have, of course, touted this betrayal as a victory for the poor. It is however, precisely the reverse. Expansion will consign thousands of truly poor and disabled Virginians to purgatorial Medicaid waiting lists while advancing able-bodied adults with incomes above the federal poverty level (FPL) to the front of the line.
Why would Virginia pursue such an obviously unjust policy? Like all Democratic programs, it’s about power and money. Obamacare incentivizes expansion states to shift Medicaid’s focus to able-bodied adults by paying over 90 percent of their coverage costs, while the federal share of costs for traditional Medicaid patients remains below 60 percent. This does not mean, however, that doctors and hospitals will receive more money. Providers will continue to be paid less by Medicaid than the cost of treatment whether the patients are expansion or traditional enrollees. The extra money will go to political slush funds and insurance companies.
Medicaid expansion doesn’t work like the original program, which was administered by the states as a safety net for poor children, pregnant women, the disabled, and the elderly. Management of Obamacare’s corrupted version of the program is farmed out to insurance companies. A typical example is Wellcare, which accrued over $10.6 billion in 2017 from its coverage of able-bodied adults. The company plans to reinvest $2.5 billion of that revenue in the acquisition of Meridian Health Plans of Illinois and Michigan, which will increase its Medicaid portfolio by 37 percent. Meanwhile, truly poor patients die on waiting lists.
This is not conjecture. A recent study, conducted by the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), revealed that at least 21,904 Americans have withered away and died on Medicaid waiting lists in the states that expanded the program under Obamacare. Even worse, the 21,904 figure reported in the study almost certainly understates the true death toll. A number of expansion states were somehow “unable” to provide FGA with death totals, while others implausibly claimed that there were none to report. It is nonetheless clear that Medicaid waiting lists in expansion states constitute a kind of death row for the genuinely poor.
The worst carnage has occurred just north of the Beltway. Maryland is easily the deadliest state for traditional Medicaid applicants, chalking up no fewer than 8,495 deaths among individuals languishing on its waiting list. During the same time period, even as these patients were left to die, the bureaucrats of the Old Line State enrolled very nearly 300,000 able-bodied adults under the aegis of Obamacare. Louisiana took second place in killing its traditional Medicaid patients. The Pelican State reported 5,534 deaths among the unfortunates who wound up on its waiting list, while 451,000 able-bodied adults were enrolled under Obamacare’s expansion.
Additional states whose Medicaid waiting lists have killed a thousand or more people include New Mexico, where 2,031 poor and disabled patients died while the state signed up 259,537 enrollees under Obamacare’s expansion scheme. Michigan left 1,970 of its residents to die while enrolling 665,057 in its new and improved Medicaid program. West Virginia allowed 1,093 patients to die on its waiting list while signing up 181,105 able-bodied enrollees. The remaining expansion states are mere also-rans with death tolls ranging from Iowa’s paltry 989 down to Minnesota, which managed to leave only 15 of its poor and disabled citizens for dead.
This is the august company Virginia’s General Assembly chose to join last week. The Old Dominion will become the 33rd state to take Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion bait, demonstrating that the commonwealth’s politicians have learned little or nothing from the deadly experiences of the previous states that were gaffed by their own greed. Those Medicaid expansion states still have nearly 250,000 poor, disabled, and elderly individuals wasting away on waiting lists. Yet Obamacare advocates in Utah, Idaho, and Nebraska — blissfully unaware of the death tolls quoted above — are working to pass expansion in November via referenda.
Maine activists have already tricked the voters of the Pine Tree State into passing a referendum approving expansion, but the program hasn’t been implemented because Governor Paul Lepage has refused to go forward: “My administration will not implement Medicaid expansion until it has been fully funded by the Legislature at the levels DHHS has calculated, and I will not support increasing taxes on Maine families.” This speaks to one of expansion’s most profound ironies. Even if Washington continues footing most of the bill, herding the able-bodied into Medicaid is a budget buster for the states. It nearly broke Maine the last time they tried it.
Medicaid expansion under Obamacare privileges able-bodied adults with incomes above FPL, states can’t pay for it in the long haul, and it causes the genuinely poor to be dumped onto waiting lists where they quietly die in their thousands. Yet the Old Dominion’s newly-minted Governor, Ralph Northam, will gleefully sign an expansion bill into law this week as the leaders of his party and the media beam benevolently from on high. His name may even be uttered by the Great Mentioner as potential presidential material. For any Democrat, that’s certainly well worth a little inequity, the occasional budget deficit, and a few thousand human sacrifices.
The post Yes, Virginia, Medicaid Expansion Will Harm the Poor appeared first on The American Spectator.
The New Hampshire Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee rejected a bill that would have created a state commission for reviewing occupational licensing rules.
The committee voted to reject House Bill 1685 (H.B. 1685) on April 5. The state House of Representatives had approved the bill in March.
H.B. 1685’s sponsor, state Rep. Bill Ohm (R-Nashua) says his bill could have helped people get jobs and lift themselves out of poverty and drug addiction.
“New Hampshire has an interesting dichotomy,” Ohm said. “We have extremely low unemployment but high levels of opioid addiction. We have perhaps 15,000 recovering opioid addicts sidelined from our workforce, and a need for able-bodied working adults. One part of the bill was to make New Hampshire ‘recovery friendly’ by requiring licensing boards to determine, in advance, whether an individual’s criminal record would disqualify that individual from obtaining the appropriate license.”
Ohm says H.B. 1685 would have created opportunities for those seeking to better themselves.
“The intention of the bill was to increase employment opportunities for those who wish to work,” Ohm said. “It does that by starting a process to review all occupational licensing over a five-year period to see if the current laws are appropriate.”
Hoped to Cut Cronyism
Ohm says many occupational licensing rules reflect obvious cronyism.
“Some professions, such as cosmetology, require more than 1,000 hours of training to get an appropriate license,” Ohm said. “The expense of that training serves to discourage job seekers who wish to enter that profession, and seems to primarily benefit those who wish to restrict additional competition. If an EMT can qualify for a license with 40 hours of training, is cosmetology that much more dangerous to public health and safety?”
‘Little Public Purpose’
David Harrington, an economics professor at Kenyon College, says his research has led him to conclude occupational licensing needlessly increases the prices of goods and services.
“Most of my studies of occupational licensing involve the funeral industry,” Harrington said. “I have found evidence that more stringent requirements to become a funeral service worker increase funeral prices paid by consumers and reduce the likelihood that they choose cremation, because funeral directors persuade many of them to purchase a more expensive, traditional earth burial.”
Ohm says many government occupational restrictions have little real benefit for the general public.
“Licensing is certainly appropriate for occupations that put the health and safety of the public at risk, such as medical professionals, but other licensed professions, such as an athletic trainer or an auctioneer, seem to involve little public risk,” Ohm said. “Requiring a state license to enter certain professions seems to create a high barrier to entry with little public purpose.”
The burden of government permission slips is especially heavy for women and ethnic minorities, Harrington says.
“Women are less likely to be funeral directors in states that require all funeral directors to be embalmers,” Harrington said. “I also think that these laws make it difficult for immigrants to enter funeral directing to serve their communities.”
Ohm says the public can ensure the safety and quality of goods and services without government control.
“Professions should be open to jobseekers who meet appropriate standards of training and proficiency,” Ohm said. “Industry or government certifications, proof of insurance and bonding, and even social media reports are less restrictive ways to protect consumers than licensing.”
Editor’s Note: This article was published in cooperation with The Heartland Institute’s Budget & Tax News.
PHOTO: New Hampshire State House in Concord, NH. Photograph taken and uploaded by Jared C. Benedict on 29 December 2004. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
The post New Hampshire Senate Rejects Occupational Licensing Bill appeared first on New Revere Daily Press.
Israeli forces killed a 21-year old Palestinian woman, a volunteer paramedic, in Gaza yesterday:
A young Palestinian woman was shot dead by Israeli soldiers near the Gaza border fence on Friday, in another day of protests and violence, Palestinian medical sources said.
Razan al-Najjar, 21, was shot near Khan Yunis in the south of the territory, health ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qudra said, bringing the toll of Gazans killed by Israeli fire since the end of March to 123.
According to Qudra, Najjar was a volunteer with the ministry, wearing the white uniform of a medic when she was shot in the chest.
Targeting medical personnel is strictly prohibited even in war, and it is nothing less than criminal to gun down a paramedic while she is trying to assist others. All of the illegal shootings have been outrageous and excessive, but the killing of this young woman seems particularly perverse and absolutely indefensible. Ms. Najjar’s killing is just the latest in a series of illegal shootings of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza. As the report indicates, hers is the 123rd fatality from Israeli attacks on the protesters.
When we met her at a protest camp in Khan Younis last month, she said her father was proud of what she did.
“We have one goal,” she said, “to save lives and evacuate people. And to send a message to the world: Without weapons, we can do anything.”
Ms. Najjar was helping to tend to the many thousands of Palestinians that are being injured in the Gaza protests when she was shot to death. She posed no threat to anyone. How could she have? She was dressed as a medic, and yet she was murdered anyway. What else do we call the deliberate shooting of an unarmed woman as she helps treat injuries?
The U.S. response to these killings all along has been to shift blame away from Israel, the obviously culpable party, absurdly pin responsibility for everything on Hamas, and to shield Israel from the consequences of its forces’ actions. Yesterday was no different. The U.S. vetoed of a Kuwait-sponsored resolution that condemned Israel’s illegal use of force against Palestinian protesters:
Kuwait’s draft resolution condemned the use of “excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force by the Israeli forces against Palestinian civilians” and demanded a halt to such actions.
The U.S. was unusually isolated on both this resolution and the one our government sponsored. Just as the U.S. was the only member of the Security Council voting against the Kuwait-sponsored measure, it was the only voting for its own lopsided resolution. Reflexive U.S. support for anything and everything Israel does cannot possibly be in the American interest, and it is a disaster for the people of Palestine.
Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Social justice busybodies obsessed with how other people live their lives often portray the success of their causes as a matter of destiny.
“The young people will win,” insists one youthful gun control advocate, falsely portraying his personal crusade as a generational mandate. Yet recent events have demonstrated that bedrock American values – including support for the Second Amendment – tend to outlast moments of high emotion that are increasingly relied upon by political opportunists to advance their agenda.
Given the chance to collect their thoughts, most Americans instinctively revert to freedom.
We recently commented on this point with reference to poll numbers that show a familiar pattern of gun control support spiking in the immediate aftermath of an infamous firearm-related crime, only to taper off as the punditry aims its fury in another direction or overplays its hand and is forced to regroup.
Since then, additional evidence has arisen to complicate the media’s breathless narrative that “the ground is shifting on gun control.”
First, more recent poll numbers underscore the fact that Americans, including young Americans, recognize that the country has far more pressing problems than rushing to enact unproven gun control measures.
The Associated Press and MTV, for example, teamed up this year to measure the “Youth Political Pulse,” with surveys conducted from late February to early March (when the news cycle was focused on the terrible crime at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School) and again from late April to early May. Between the survey periods, the percentage of respondents aged 15 to 34 who identified firearm-related issues as their highest concern for the country fell 15 points, from 21% to 6%. During the earlier survey period, the gun issue was the highest concern. In the latter period, it was tied for the sixth most common response, behind the economy, social inequality, and even threat of nuclear war.
Moreover, a week after a similar crime in Santa Fe, Texas on May 18, support for gun control in the Lone Star State had actually dropped 6% since April, as measured by Quinnipiac University polling. Support for stricter gun laws was also lower in the May sample among those aged 18 to 34 than among those 65 or older, another inversion of the conventional wisdom that youth are destined to change the national debate on this question.
A Quinnipiac analyst opined: “The tragedy at the Santa Fe school south of Houston changed few opinions among Texas voters about gun control. Support for gun control in general is down slightly, while support for background checks for all gun buyers is virtually unchanged.”
Adding to the gun control advocates’ woes were the release of data and studies that contradicted their claims of a rising epidemic of school shootings fueled by easy access to so-called “assault weapons.”
The website The74Million.org, which describes itself as a “non-profit, non-partisan news site covering education in America,” published a lengthy interview in May with Criminologist Nadine Connell of the University of Texas at Dallas, who’s compiling a database of every school shooting since 1990. The piece underscored Connell’s findings that “school shootings are extremely rare” and that allowing them to drive policy isn’t “always the most productive” way to keep students safe.
Connell indicated that “from the perspective of policymaking,” the media’s current reporting on school shootings can be misleading.
“[A]s of now,” she said, “we don’t think there is an increase in the number of incidents as much as there is an increase in the attention to the incidents.” She also stressed that “the number of rampage-like incidents remains extremely low, and they are a relatively small subsection of the shootings we are analyzing.” Schools, Connell said, “are the safest they’ve ever been.”
While Connell indicated in the interview that she is not a fan of arming teachers, she also declined to put gun control at the center of the debate. When asked what would be the “most effective method to stop the lion’s share of the problem,” she emphasized “whole-school-centered approaches to improve climate, clarify expectations, and support teachers and administrators in creating a community of trust and support.” She also noted that the “environmental design” of schools can play an important role in keeping kids safe without making them feel like they are under siege.
Can Mass Shootings be Stopped?
Perhaps more even more ironic was a May 22 report from the Rockefeller Institute that was funded by a multi-state “Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium” representing a who’s-who of Northeastern antigun jurisdictions. Entitled “Can Mass Shootings be Stopped?” the report broadly focuses on mass shootings in general, rather than on school-specific events.
Like Connell, however, the authors mentioned media distortion as an impediment to understanding the true nature of the problem.
“Mass shootings, and those that are particularly lethal, are amplified by the news cycle, making them appear more commonplace when they are, in fact, statistically rare,” they stated. They also characterized the media’s coverage of the events as “unbalanced,” potentially leading the public to “hold disproportional attitudes about the events themselves.”
The report made the points that mass shootings are not limited to the U.S. but “occur in countries worldwide,” are nearly three times more likely to be perpetrated with handguns than with “assault weapons,” and occur more frequently in workplaces than in schools. Also likely to displease its funders is the report’s observation that gun control laws, whether passed in the immediate wake of a mass shooting or kept on the books for decades “often are not enforced, leading them to be ineffective at preventing the next mass shooting.” But perhaps most damning of all was the authors’ admonition that “[k]nee-jerk reactions rooted in emotion will not solve the problem.”
Yet that is exactly how gun control advocates operate and what they offer. Whatever can be said about the youthful gun control activists who have captured so much of the media’s attention lately, they are among the prime purveyors of emotionalism and hyperbole. And far from bringing innovative new thinking to the issue, their main “solution” is the tired notion of banning guns that are underrepresented in rampage gun crimes and remain highly popular among the law-abiding. Instead of treating every word out of their mouths as some new game-changing revelation, their gun control seniors should remind them that “assault weapon” bans had until recently been de-emphasized as an embarrassment to the movement and too obvious of its prohibitory intent.
Unlike the latest gun control hashtag or self-congratulatory Hollywood vanity project, the National Rifle Association has been around since 1871. We’ve seen movements come, and we’ve seen movements go. And while we never doubt the sincerity of our opposition in their desire to eradicate the right to keep and bear arms, we’re not about to change our values or objectives just because some media talking heads or youth-obsessed celebrities begin making demands or throwing around half-baked claims.
Fortunately, the American commitment to freedom also remains strong and resilient. And freedom-loving Americans know they have an ally in the NRA.
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
The post American Values Prove Stubbornly Resistant to Gun Control Opportunism appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
Michael Ledeen is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
I testified against the Patriot Act because I feared the abuse of secret tribunals. I’m usually far off in my predictions, but it was obvious from the get-go that the FISA courts would be abused by the Intelligence Community, and indeed those secret courts have almost always done what the FBI and CIA asked, even when—as in the case of General Michael Flynn—the IC had to ask several times, and even when the “evidence” consisted of an unverified “dossier” produced by a political campaign.
The Intelligence Community has long considered itself a state within the American state, dating from its creation just after World War II. Most of the time, the IC has used its power to support presidential policies—the CIA snooped on the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2014, and on the McGovern campaign, and the FBI spied on the Goldwater campaign– but when a president acted against the IC’s convictions, the spooks advanced their own interests and beliefs.
No sooner had President Truman recognized the state of Israel, than the CIA swung into (illegal) action, secretly creating the American Friends of the Middle East, which brought Middle Easterners to America, published their views, and lobbied Congress, all against Israel. In the words of Hudson’s Michael Doran,
AFME was a remarkable instance of a CIA-confected front organization designed to counter official government policy, in this case by seeking to delegitimize Zionism in domestic American politics.
Truman quickly understood what was at stake. “It’s become a government all of its own and all secret. They don’t have to account to anybody.”.
It was, Truman recognized, part of a broader problem: bureaucrats who saw themselves, not mere elected officials, as the only legitimate policy makers. “The civil servant, the general or admiral, the foreign service officer,” Truman insisted, “has no authority to make policy. They act only as servants of the government, and therefore they must remain in line with the government policy that is established by those who have been chosen by the people to set that policy.”
This enraged the president, who was also furious at the State Department’s opposition to his Middle East policies. Yet bureaucratic action against presidential policies remained common. As Truman discovered, the IC used “intelligence” to undermine presidential policies and advance its own. This was demonstrated in the 1970s, when a private-sector group of analysts known as “Team B”—led by the recently-departed Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard–successfully challenged the CIA’s view of Soviet military strength, and the CIA’s conviction that we had very little to fear from the Kremlin.
Back in the Truman years, the president was able to appreciate Soviet intentions better than the IC, ironically thanks in no small part to his own intelligence operation in cahoots with Israel. Ironically, Truman opened a secret back channel to Tel Aviv at the same time the CIA was sabotaging American cooperation with the Jewish state, via the legendary spook James Jesus Angleton, whose point of contact in Israel was Ben-Gurion’s personal secretary, Teddy Kolleck. The two worked closely with Israel’s domestic security service, the Shin Bet, debriefing Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Empire. Angleton, like most CIA officials, suspected the Israelis of collusion with the Soviet Union, but in time he realized this was not true. Angleton subsequently received the text of Khrushchev’s speech about Stalin’s crimes…from the Israelis. He was subsequently outed by CIA chief William Colby, with whom he had had many disagreements.
Bureaucratic arrogance is an ongoing problem, nowhere more than the Intelligence Community. The problem is more grave today, with the advances in electronic snooping, the courts’ willingness to let the intelligence agencies pry into all manner of communications, and the zeal with which the media report improper leaks. As Lee Smith recently tweeted:
They (the IC) ran a counterintelligence investigation of a former rival spy chief, Mike Flynn, a retired 3-star General. Abuse. Then they leaked intercept of his conversation with Russian ambassador. Crime. Now our 3d world press hires our 3d world spy chiefs.
Secret tribunals guarantee this sort of corruption. Yes, there are cases where decisions on spying on Americans must be secret, but we pay a terrible price for them. And as things stand, the snoopers have all the cards. The game is totally rigged.
Doctors and medical professionals have the best intentions. And despite years of schooling, they cannot always predict what will happen. And this can be a good thing. Sometimes doctors predict that a person only has a few weeks left to live. But then that person, by some miracle unknown to science, defies the odds and not only survives but thrives.
The story is more common than you might think. But the same goes in the opposite direction. Sometimes doctors ignore patients’ symptoms, tell them they are “paranoid,” or that they “just have the flu.” And when these turn out to be wrong, they can put a person’s life in jeopardy.
Thankfully, this story does not have a sad ending. Although getting from Point A to Point B is a windy, roller coaster ride. You’re about to hear about a record-breaking birth in Australia.
Miley is a Dalmatian that got pregnant by her canine boyfriend, Astro. And on May 18, 2017, Miley started to go into labor and make them both first-time parents.
And while it was obvious that Miley was “very pregnant” by the size of her abdomen, vets go it all wrong as she started to give birth to her litter.
Although ultrasound scans indicated that Miley was pregnant with three pups, she proceeded to prove all the “experts” wrong as she started pushing puppy after puppy out into the world. And Miley’s owner Cecilia Langton-Bunkergot stayed with her Dalmatian for fourteen hours of labor and could not believe her eyes.
Vets predicted that Miley would birth three puppies. Cecilia watched as her Dalmatian give birth to six males and twelve females. 18 puppies in total broke a record for the largest litter ever born in the country of Australia.
People have naturally started to compare Miley’s massive litter to the iconic story of 101 Dalmatians. But in the movie, mama dog Perdita, only had a litter of 15 puppies at once.
Because Miley gave birth to so many puppies at once, she is exhausted and recovering from the process. Now she is at the Ballarat Veterinary Practice. The puppies will be vaccinated and given a microchip to help Cecilia keep track of them all. It is going to be a lot of work raising this large family of puppies. But Miley is going to continue to show them all the love she can.
The vets might have only thought that she was going to give birth to three puppies, Miley probably knew better. She could probably feel all the beating hearts inside her and was prepared to show them all the love that she could. Each of these puppies will get the best care that Miley and Cecilia and provide for it. Although the family has just grown significantly, they are ready to give these puppies all the love they can as they grow into gorgeous white and black spotted dogs.
What do you think about this record-breaking birth? How could the vets get the number of puppies so wrong during the ultrasound scan?
Joy Reid, host of AM Joy on MSNBC, issued an apology on Friday regarding controversial statements that resurfaced from blog posts she wrote in the mid-aughts. The remarks ranged from 9/11 conspiracy theories to posting an illustration of Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) head on the body of the Virginia Tech shooter.
"While I published my blog, starting in 2005, I wrote thousands of posts in real time on the issues of the day," Reid said in a statement. "There are things I deeply regret and am embarrassed by, things I would have said differently and issues where my position has changed. Today I'm sincerely apologizing again."
"I'm sorry for the collateral damage and pain this is causing individuals and communities caught in the crossfire," she added.
Reid specifically addressed the blog post regarding Sen. McCain.
"To be clear, I have the highest respect for Sen. McCain as a public servant and patriot and wish him and his family the best. I have reached out to Meghan McCain and will continue to do so," Reid said. "She is a former on-air colleague and I feel deeply for her and her family.
She also clarified that she does not agree with the ideology supported in the 9/11 conspiracy film, "Loose Change”—a film co-produced by Infowars’ Alex Jones—which she reportedly promoted on her now-defunct blog, according to a BuzzFeed report this week.
"I've also spoken openly about my evolution on many issues and know that I'm a better person today than I was over a decade ago," she said. "I am the daughter of immigrants and have worked to be a strong ally of these communities. There is no question in my mind that Al Qaeda perpetrated the 9/11 attacks or about Israel's right to its sovereignty."
"I believe the totality of my work attests to my ideals and I continue to grow every day," Reid added.
MSNBC released its own statement standing by Reid.
"Some of the things written by Joy on her old blog are obviously hateful and hurtful," the network said. "They are not reflective of the colleague and friend we have known at MSNBC for the past seven years. Joy has apologized publicly and privately and said she has grown and evolved in the many years since, and we know this to be true."
What both statements failed to address were the homophobic remarks that surfaced on her now-defunct blog in April — the ones she claimed hackers actually made.
"Many of you have seen these blog posts circulating online and on social media. Many of them are homophobic, discriminatory and outright weird and hateful," she said in April. "I spent a lot of time trying to make sense of these posts. I hired cybersecurity experts to see if somebody had manipulated my words or my former blog, and the reality is they have not been able to prove it."
"I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things because they are completely alien to me,” she added. “But I can definitely understand based on things I have tweeted and have written in the past why some people don't believe me."
Reloader, Bob Shell, tests a range of assorted powders loads and bullet weights in 30-30 Ammunition and finds it still is an effective round 120+ years later.
Editors Note: Caution, Reloading is dangerous, read our “Reloading Disclaimer“. The reloading data published by this website is intended for discussion purposes only. As with all data collection, mistakes are possible. You have been warned.**
Apache Junction, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)- One of the very first smokeless rounds designed for sporting purposes was the 30-30 cartridge introduced in the Winchester model 94 rifle.
It became generally available in 1895. The original factory ammo offering was a 160 grain at 2,000 FPS.
In that day such velocities were almost unheard of. Typical black powder rounds usually produced 12 to 1400FPS. While 2,000 FPS sounds pedestrian by today’s standards, it did the job and hunters quickly realized that this was the wave of the future. For much of the woods hunting the 30-30 has plenty of power. Later on, the 150 and 170-grain bullets were added, and velocity increased.
A few years later other manufacturers realized the potential of the 30-30 ammunition round and brought out their versions as the Winchester model 94 rifle was selling like hotcakes, and they wanted a piece of the pie.
Savage brought out the 303 Savage also in a lever action though it had a box type of magazine and Remington introduced the 30 Remington round in some pump and semi-auto rifles. I have owned and shot all of them, and ballistically they are virtually identical to the 30-30. It would be a personal choice as to the type of gun as they all perform the same. The 30 Remington and 303 Savage were popular for some years, but they are no longer made. Guns can still be found as well as ammo and reloading components with a little shopping.
However, the 30-30 Ammunition Cartridge is as popular as ever.
One of the companies that makes manually operated firearms have been around for a number of years and they advertise that everything is made in America. Another unusual thing is they advertise on TV which few others do. Evidently it works or they would drop it. If you want something different you should definitely check out Henry Arms. They have a large variety of rifles including rimfires. They have the mares leg handgun, a lever action in 410 gauge and the Henry 45-70 rifle among other arms. Single shot shotguns are available as well. For info you can go to www.henryusa.com for info.
Henry Lever Action .30-30 Rifle
One of their products is a lever action rifle chambered for the 30-30 in various models. My model is a Henry Lever Action .30-30 Rifle, model H009 which is a blued steel model with a round barrel.
It is drilled and tapped for a top mounted scope which will enhance accuracy beyond a hundred yards. A Hawke scope is the planned one for this review. I have used the Hawke on many occasions and they always come through. They are reasonably priced and the rifle selection is good so for info you can go to us.hawkeoptics.com on their products. For a budget conscious hunter who wants a good scope at a reasonable price, you would be missing out if you don’t check the HAWK Scopes out. I have done quite a bit of testing with this scope and everything checks out. It is clear at all ranges and power settings. With this scope, you have the ability to take a long shot if available and using something like the Flex Tip bullet. Based on my experiences with the Hawke brand I recommend it.
The wood of the Henry Lever Action .30-30 Rifle has a pleasing figure while the bluing is not glossy but even. Another odd feature is it loads by a tube under the barrel as many 22 RF guns do. Most 30-30 lever guns load through the receiver. There is no politically correct safety of any kind which is a plus. Common sense gun handling tends to prevent those types of accidents. The trigger pull is good not too light or heavy.
We did find that the lever screw and a tang screw were loose. Not a big deal but perhaps they might want to look at during production.One other thing we noticed is the way it loads. Most people will put a round in the chamber in order to get the seven rounds. However, when loading the tube your hand may be in front of the muzzle at various times. So, if the chamber has a round in it and is cocked a small misstep may cause it to fire. Such an incident may cause a serious hand injury so be careful see pix.
One thing that was noticeable is the figure on the stock. It has some of the most attractive wood I have seen for a while. Yes, composite stocks are more durable but if looks are important to you then this rifle will definitely have a place in your cabinet.
There are other chamberings and styles available plus some shotguns. So why a 30-30 rifle? It has been around for over 120 years, and one would think that it would be obsolete and no longer made. Nothing is further from the truth. There are several other rifle makers, and the Henry 30-30 is one of the top sellers. Most are lever guns, but some single shot and bolt action rifles are available. The 30-30 round has been used by many hunters, and when used as designed it produces good results often ending with a deer in the pot. It is usually considered a woods gun meant for moderate ranges. However, with the new and improved powders and flex tips the range can be extended. Some people feel that as long as a bullet produces 1,000 FT-LBS of energy at the target, it is considered adequate for deer sized game. With Hornady Flex Tip bullets that number can be obtained at 300 yards with safe loads and regular lever action.
30-30 Cartidge Loadings
Here are some examples when the powder charged is increased by one grain. Some brands of bullets were more consistent than others which is normal. That is why if you are working up a load for serious purposes it is important to try different powder and bullet combos. Each gun has its preferences.
|32gr RL #7||110gr FMJ-RN||2521.6||Very Consistent|
|18gr 5744||150gr Berry||1478.9||Consistent|
|Barnes||150gr Vortex||2404.6||Good Hunting Load|
|32gr 8208||150gr Speer||2212||Ok but can increase|
|33gr 8208||150gr Horn||2263.36||Ok|
|34gr H-4895||150gr Combined||2304.4||Decent|
|37gr CFE-223||150gr Horn||2250.55||Very Consistent|
|37gr Leverrevolution||150gr Barns||2385||Nice Load|
|36.5gr Leverrevolution||160gr Flex||2335||Long Range Potential|
|Hornday||160gr Flex Tip||2369.80||Nice Load|
|18gr 5744||160gr Cast||1573.89||Consistent|
|10gr Unique Mossberg||165gr cast||1347.60||Very Consistent|
|10gr Unique Henry||165gr cast||1336.44||Very Consistent|
|31gr 8208||170gr Speer||2060.71||Deer Load|
|32gr 8208||170gr Speer||2107.4||Consistent|
|35gr Leverrevolution||180gr Horn RN||2144||Consistent|
|30gr 8208||180g Horn RN||2008.8||Decent|
|14gr 5744||220 gr cast GC||1286.7||Ok Load|
Just for info, the 10 grains of Unique and the 165 gr cast was fired in a Mossberg and Henry both lever actions and a 20” barrel. The results were very similar, and Unique is one of the very best powders for reduced loads.
For those who are interested in the potential of a 30-30 at different ranges here is some info that may help.
150 grain RN
Muzzle 2390/1902 – 100 yards 1959/1278 – 200 yards 1581/832
160 grain Hornady FTX which is a pointed bullet safe in a tubular magazine.
Muzzle 2400/2046 – 100 yards 2150/1636 – 200 yards 1916/1309 – 300 yards 1699/1025
As you can see the 150 grain drops below 1000 LBS before reaching 200 yards while the FTX extends the range to 300 yards a 35% increase in usable range. The 170-grain flat point launched at 2200 FPS drops below 1000 FP LBS of energy at over 150 yards so the 160 grain FTX would double the useful range. Therefore it would be a mistake to sell the 30-30 short.
I wanted to see what 30-30 ammunition could do in a stronger rifle and I have a TC single shot and used it for the test.
I wont be listing the loads here as someone would try them in a lever action which could cause a catastrophic event. It would probably hold them but would cause excess wear and could damage the gun. So why take the chance especially if you don’t understand the ramifications of using such loads.
For this experiment, here is list of the top velocity of the bullets tested. It will become obvious quickly that these velocities are quite a bit above normal and I know that they are that is why the loading data isn’t included. If you have a TC or strong bolt action then these velocities can be safely obtained. This is a little off the subject but it shows that the 30-30 is more than just a short-range woods load. The Henry rifle is well built and has as good an action as any 30-30 but I would not try these loads in it. If you were carrying a 30-30 in grizzly country them one of the heavy bullets may serve but for 99% of us the factory spec loads will do just fine. These are the velocities obtained in a single shot rifle.
Factory 30-30 ammunition is usually produced with a 150 or 170 grain bullet. That takes care of most hunting situations that a 30-30 should be used for. Recently they added a 160 grain Flex Tip which enhances its range. One thing that puzzles me is they never offered a 180 or 190 grain RN. The 303 Savage offered it in the 190 grains at one time and it had a good reputation.
The 180 would give a little extra penetration if you were hunting large black bear or large boar. They shoot well and have their uses through a 150 or 170 would cover deer and similar game. The Hornady 180 grain feeds ok but care must be taken to seat deep enough in fact with any gun and ammo types you should cycle them before you go hunting. You can’t seat it in the cannelure, doing so will make it too long. Since it has a long neck a cannelure isn’t needed. However, if you have a bullet that needs that procedure that is an easy task. I have a CH cannelure tool which comes in handy on many occasions. In the last decade or so factory ammo has improved a lot.
In fact, it can be a challenge to do better than the factory loads. The only downside is the cost. An indication of how popular round is the variety offered by various ammo companies. Hornady a leading ammo maker offers 5 different loads for this round. For more info, you can go to www.hornady.com/ammunition for a listing on their products. Another fine ammo maker is Barnes. They brought out the copper bullets which have turned out to be great hunting bullets. They offer the 30-30 ammunition in the 150 gr Vor Tex and they shoot well for info you can go to www.barnesbullets.com for more info.
Handloading, the 30-30 ammunition, brings out the potential and with a Henry rifle with the Hawke scope your usable range will increase. Some hunters tend to look down on the 30-30 ammunition as obsolete and no longer effective. Apparently, since 1895 deer have grown tougher and may have some armor at least that so is the thought process for many when buying a rifle these days. They go with the short, medium and long magnums for woods hunting. They feel that a bullet screaming along at over 3000 FPS is needed to kill a deer at moderate ranges.
After some years pass some of those super magnums will be a footnote while 30-30 ammunition will carry on.
About Bob Shell
A Custom Reloader of Obsolete and Antique Ammo, Bob Shell, writes about the subject of Guns, Ammo, Shooting and Related Subjects. Visit: www.bobshellsblog.blogspot.com
The post 30-30 Ammunition, A Historic Cartridge Continues to Carry On : Load Testing appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
Authorities became aware of Johnson, who lives near an elementary school, after someone reported that he was “acting suspiciously.” “This is obviously a sick individual, and that’s why we’re treating this with the utmost severity,” Sini said.